In the QuikWars rule set, all you are doing is seeing who rolls higher, so it doesn't matter what you use for dice as long as they are the same.

However, the rule of Heroic feats is further explained in the Heroes section of the 2005 rules sets. Although Heroes have a skill of 1d10, it states:

"To attempt a Heroic Feat, the player describes the Feat his Hero is about to attempt, and rolls 1d6. If one of his opponents would like the Feat to fail (and they probably will), he also rolls 1d6. If the Hero's roll ties or exceeds the opponent's roll, the Feat succeeds; otherwise the Hero's efforts end in failure."

When a hero is concerned the only difficulty involved is getting your opponent to let you do whatever crazy thing you cook up. If they have no opposition, there's no point in having a chance of the action <b>not</b> happen, because all the fun resulting in the action is gone. It's basically a What I Say Goes Roll on the hero's action. It happens unless someone opposes it.

Often, literally, a pillow fight but may include similar situations like volleyball, particularly when wardrobe is skimpy and the action is bouncy.

But even if no one wants the feat to fail don't you have to roll something anyway cause any roll where all the dice end up as a "one" is considered a critical failure? It's like leaving just a hint of fate up to the brikgods.

So far I've always rolled to see how successful the Hero's action is going to be and include crit fails in that roll but he also has the opportunity to over do it on a crit success too. I never use autosuccess for anything. For an unopposed roll I try to weigh up what I think the difficulty should be based on the Hero's own stats. Should it be a 50/50 chance or what, it's just like games mastering for role-players. I try not to make things too difficult though as I like my games Super Heroic/Villainous with Cinematic action, it's just more fun.

However, the people who get a good ballance in their games are people like Zahru, Brag and Natalya (and others). They don't go too over the score or get carried away like I tend to.

In the one game I've played, which was a forum battle, I rolled the opposing player dice, and it was quite boring. Just having a fail or success is a little un-Brikwarsy, when instead it could have varying degrees of success in failure, resulting in varying amounts of hilarity and/or awesomeness.

aoffan23 wrote:In the one game I've played, which was a forum battle, I rolled the opposing player dice, and it was quite boring. Just having a fail or success is a little un-Brikwarsy, when instead it could have varying degrees of success in failure, resulting in varying amounts of hilarity and/or awesomeness.

If you didn't get the best result you were hoping for I say you still technically failed because you failed your intentions but of course like you mention some other good outcome could happen and you come up with the appropriate consequence, good or bad or both. I think auto-success is a bit "un-Brikwarsy" but I don't see how fail/success is. When a minifig gets hit he either keeps on truckin or he dies. While Creativity and Mayhem are Brikwarsy, Simplicity is also Brikwarsy.